halofanonfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Good Articles Reevaluation Proposal
__TOC__ Panelist Discussion Voting # As per the proposal in the interest of making the Good Articles list a directory of the site's best for new users to take cues from. That Damn Sniper 03:27, April 16, 2019 (UTC) # I feel that it's an attempt to fix a non-issue that is unfair to those who left the site before quality/canon standards shifted. As per my earlier statement about this coming to a vote, I'm not really in favour of this 'legacy' thing either. # I've already given my thoughts on the project, so it's unsurprising that I'm in favour of it. # Per Brodie; I think it's a non-issue. If someone truly had enough of a problem with this to bring it up yet at the same time not do the due diligence to figure out that these articles were written at a time when GA standards were different, I'd suspect they were just trolling. At the very least it would be wilfully negligent. Users are smart enough to figure this out for themselves, and it's an easy enough discrepancy to simply explain to people if it does actually get brought up for it to not justify the extra trouble of periodically going back and judging articles all over again whenever standards change, as they will inevitably continue to evolve in the future. I would at the very least be okay with Tim's suggestion of "Legacy Good Articles", but even then I feel that is entirely unnecessary. # This site has a proud history of rising quality standards. I understand the sentiment behind wanting to go back and give some of the previous winners a re-look, but I'm sure we also have previous Annual Award and FOTM winners that might raise some eyebrows as well. Past decisions by the GA panel should certainly not be used to argue for lowered standards in future votes but they also won their GA status on this site and should be allowed to keep it. Comments , I believe you were referring to me in that regard - to start up a new project. The reason I originally suggested was due to the workload and the concerns of how to handle reevaluation. I was thinking that instead of trying to figure out which articles fit which new standard and to have to create a new template to slap on all these older articles, it would simply be easier to start up a successor program. The GA era icon would remain, no need to add a new template for legacy, anyone who wanted to put forth their article for a new GA set-standard as part of a new project could do so at their own behest and articles with the GA era icon could also carry a new era icon to represent the new project, marking as both old and new standards being met. I'm not sure in practice how this variation might work or even if its a worthwhile idea in traction, given the voiced negation - I suppose it isn't. As far as I can tell, creating a new project to replace GA would probably require the least amount of effort. Me showing my lazy side here.}} As I've said privately, one doesn't go around revoking previous Oscar awards simply because one from 1937 can't compete with the standards (technical and societal) of a 2019 nomination. Trying to make some Legacy and some not seems overly cumbersome to me, instead of simply telling anyone that tries to use old articles as leverage that "we don't do that anymore" --LOMI Speaketh 11:57, April 16, 2019 (UTC)